because the term legislature not in the constitution, taken out by the 17th amendment, the senators should be chosen by the legislature. and there was no suggestion that this could be displaced. >> so your honor, justice kennedy, there's no question as this court has explained repeatedly, first in smith versus hawk which distinguished hildebrand and the

legislative power that is addressed in article section 1 from the election of senators in article 1 section 3. and again in smiley that made clear that the meaning, as this court reiterated just last week in yates, that the meaning of a term in an enactment may differ depending on the function that the term is serving. >> now you're going to the statute. but just under the constitution you're saying the legislature in the first article of section 3, the now repealed section that talks about choosing senators means something different than it means in the following section. >> as this court explained in smith versus hawk, which was an article 5 question of the meaning of the word legislature for purposes of ratification.

in smith versus hawk, this court said that in the article 1 section 3 election of senators by the legislature and in article 5 the ratification power, what was at issue was a power that is the power to elect and the power to ratify that specifically comported with the elected representative body. and it used those as examples the court said where often, justice kennedy, often the term legislature in the constitution has that meaning. but smith then goes on and distinguishes hildebrand on precisely the grounds we are urging that what was issued in hildebrand under the elections clause is not a particular body, a brick and mortar legislature

necessarily, it is the legislative power of the state. >> i understand hildebrand is very helpful to you. to get back to justice scalia's question, is there any other provision where legislature means anything other than the conventional meaning? how about applying for a constitutional convention? calling on the president to send in troops to suppress domestic violence. creating a new state out of part of the state of arizona for instance. does it mean anything other than the conventional meaning of legislature? >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> it might? you think it might? >> well, this court has never said that it doesn't. it's never said that it does. it has focused a lot of attention on three particular -- in the constitution. the article 5 ratification power, the former article 1 section 3 power to elect.

senators in the legislative body, and the article 1 section 4 power to make the laws in the provision that's at issue here. and i think it's particularly important. i want to get to the language of smiley, which my friend embraces. >> i'd like you to because as i read those two cases they don't help you very much. i mean, hildebrand is talking about a particular statute that was passed in 1911, and it helps the government with its statutory argument because a different statute uses similar words. we don't know if it was with the same intent. smiley talks about a sitting legislature and asks whether its exercise of map growing power is a legislative exercise or say more like an impeachment exercise. it doesn't talk about what's at issue here, where you have

people outside that building making the legislative decision. so i didn't see those two cases as helping you that much. the -- please argue to the contrary. but i think the great open question here is what happens when legislative power over time expands. from a group of people sitting in the state's capitol to those people plus a referendum. and there i don't find much help in the cases one way or the other. >> justice breyer, i think that hildebrand, smiley, hawk, and also this court's -- a case that this court decided a few months after smiley and that was block quoted in the court's opinion last week in yates, the atlantic cleaners and dyers case, all strongly support the reading of the -- the meaning of the words legislature that we advocate and

that was in fact the consensus definition of legislature. and i agree with you that -- the consensus definition, although you cannot give us a single instance in the constitution in which the consensus definition is clearly used. i don't think it was a consensus definition at all. you pluck that out of a couple of dictionaries. it was referring to -- >> the dictionaries i take it, are your support. they say how the word is used. and they define the dictionary definition of legislature as the power -- we don't use that word power in that sense much anymore -- but the power that legislates. the power that legislates in arizona is the people in the capital plus the referendums. >> i will address the cases, justice breyer, if i may, just first respond to justice scalia's assertion.

one thing is for sure. if there were any other dictionary that had a different principal meaning we would have seen it in the briefing in this case. but you only have to look at the framers' own use of the term, if i may. charles pinkney, for example, these are collected at pages 39 and 40 of our brief. charles pinkney, for example, who wanted to do away with the second part of the clause that gave congress any power because he thought it was an impairment on the states' rights said, "that america is a republic where the people at large either collectively or by representation form the legislature." madison made clear in discussing the constitution that when he referred to the legislatures of the states he meant the existing authorities in the state that comprised the legislative branch of government. james wilson repeatedly

interspersed legislatures, states, and the people acting by -- >> let's say that legislature means the body we normally can think of as the legislature. however, at the time there was no such thing as the referendum or the initiative. so when the dictionaries referred to the power, the power that makes laws it was always the legislature. it was never the people at large because there was no such thing. as the referendum. now that there is such a thing as the referendum what about saying okay, legislature means what everybody knows a legislature is. plus the full citizenry which is a level higher of democracy. but what we have here is not a level higher of democracy. it's giving this power to an

unelected body of five people that -- could that body as it's constituted here, two of them are elected -- or selected by the majority party, two selected by the minority party. what if arizona decided all four would be selected by the majority party? >> justice scalia, any delegation question -- the issue in this case is what does the word "legislature" mean? my friend concedes that whatever the legislature is it can delegate its authority. so the delegation questions, i mean, i'll endorse whatever i believe my friend would say because the arizona legislature has delegated all manner of time, place, and manner regulations to a single person. both the secretary of state and executive officer and the

individual counties that set the precinct places, the places where you can register, et cetera. so delegation, i don't think is in this case. the question is what is the legislature? and if your question is, well, you know, now we know that there's something called an initiative, of course that we knew this 120 years ago when the first states first started reserving in their constitutions legislative power to the people by initiative, but just to echo something that justin kagan alluded to in the earlier argument there are -- we're talking here about a construction of the word legislature as to all time,

place, or manner regulations. >> why doesn't your interpretation make the words by the legislature thereof entirely superfluous? in other words, why didn't they just say that the rules would be prescribed by each state? because if -- >> because -- >> i'm sorry? >> because as the court explained in smiley, what the framers wanted was it to be done by a legislation. that is, it wanted a, quote, complete code of holding congressional elections to be enacted. >> i understood your argument to be that as long as it's an exercise of legislative power that it's satisfied. and if you have, for example, a governor doing it would be pursuant to a delegation either from the people or from the legislature. but either way, nothing happens until there's an exercise of lawmaking power by the state. so it should have been sufficient for the drafters of the constitution to simply say it should be prescribed by each state. whether they do it by referendum, whether they do it by initiative, whether they do it by what is commonly understood to be the legislature. whether they do it by committee. whatever.

it's up to the state. saying by the legislature seems as i said, superfluous. >> it is up to the power in each state that makes the laws. and as to justice scalia's hypothetical about could they just delegate it to the chair of the state democratic party or just let one party choose, as justice kennedy's separate opinion in veef and cook versus grayliff points out there, might be other constitutional problems with that arising either from the first amendment or the 14th amendment. but i believe that mr. clement would agree on rebuttal that if the legislature, whatever the legislature means, if the legislature decided look, we are going to delegate this responsibility to the governor that would be a constitutional delegation because it would have been a decision made by the lawmaking body of the state. if i could just make one point and then address justice breyer's question about smiley, hildebrand, and hawk, it would be deeply, deeply inconsistent

with the enterprise in philadelphia to her better and effectuate the notion that our framers intended to set aside both a cornerstone principle of federalism in their aim to bind the people as closely as possible to the national house of representatives. yes, it is true that all of the sturm and drang over this clause related to the second part giving congress authority -- and that is because no one questioned the fundamental principles that the sovereign states could choose to allocate their legislative power as they wanted. if there had been any suggestion, the anti-federalists would have been screaming bloody murder that the states could not do so. now smiley specifically said

that -- i'm quoting from page 367, as the authority is conferred for the purpose of making laws for the state, it follows in the absence of an indication of a contrary intent that the exercise of the authority must be in accordance with the method the state has chosen, has prescribed for legislative enactments. >> if i may point out, the legislature in both smiley and hildebrand remained the prime mover. hilldebrand remained the prime mover. and what he has objected to is taking the legislature out of the picture entirely. >> yes, justice ginsberg, we can see that in neither case was the initiative power at issue. but that distinction was never made by the court either in hildebrand or smiley. in fact, smiley says, we find no suggestion in the federal constitutional provision of an attempt to endow the legislature

of a state with power to enact laws in any manner other than which the constitution -- >> it's not that -- i'm not -- it's quibbling in a sense about the case. but the question in the case is not about they say the body. i mean, what's the body? everybody agreed it was the legislature. but when the legislature acts in this instance, is it acting as an electoral body? is it acting as a ratifying body? is it acting as a consenting body? as with the acquisition of lands? or is it acting as a legislating body? and that's correct and that's the answer they give. this is a form of legislation. here the question is about the body. >> that's right. the question is, are the people by initiative a legislative body? are they the legislature as they themselves have chosen? and in smiley, again, discussing

hildebrandt, this is what the court said. and it was because of the authority of the state to determine what should constitute its legislative process that the validity of the requirement of the state constitution in its application to congressional elections was sustained. and again -- >> legislative process there means the process in the legislature. what it takes for the legislature to enact a law -- >> that's -- >> once you assume legislative refers to legislature, your whole argument for smiley just disappears. >> the state of arizona, like the states of a near majority -- the constitutions of the states of a near majority have defined the legislative power to include the people by initiative. and again, you know, in atlanta

cleaners and dyers, which was decided a month after smiley and which this court quoted last week in yates, it said that it is not unusual for the same word to be used with different meanings. and thus -- and i'm quoting -- and thus, for example, the meaning of the word "legislature," used several times in the federal constitution, differs according to the connection in which it is employed. depending upon the character of the function which that body in each instance is called upon to exercise citing smiley. >> you've said the court in yates. it was a plurality? was it? or am i -- >> yates doesn't itself, just to be clear, yates doesn't talk about this. it was the decision in yates. i thought -- my point only is that the -- this supreme court in the months following smiley again interpreted smiley -- i was not quoting from yates.

i'm quoting from atlanta cleaners and dyers itself citing smiley. thank you. >> mr. clement, you have five minutes left. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. may it please the court, let me start with the definition of "legislature." obviously we can point to our favorite quotes from the framers. there are 24, 34, 35 of the blue brief. the critical thing though is not what the framers meant by the legislature when they were talking broadly about political theory or the swiss cannon of zug. what matters is when they were talking about assigning particular authorities in the constitution to particular components of the state government. and in that context as a number of you have pointed out, there is no doubt every time they assigned an authority to the state legislature, they were assigning the authority to the representative body of the people. now, that takes us to the smiley case. and if the definition of legislature in the smiley case

is what this case turns on, then with all due respect to my friends on the other side, we win. because smiley specifically talked, as justice breyer alluded to, the body question. then it defined the body. and what it said is, quote, i'm quoting from smiley not yates or anything else, i'm quoting from smiley. the term was not one of uncertain meaning when incorporated into the constitution. what it meant when adopted, it still means for purposes of interpretation. a legislature was then the representative body which made the laws of the people -- >> that's true, but i -- see, smiley doesn't help him, i don't think, but it helps you still less. because that was the question in the case. everybody assumed, nobody denied, that it's those people in the bricks over there that are making this law. but the question is, are they legislating when they're doing it? nobody denied they were the legislative power.

here we have a different question. that is -- >> respect -- >> is this the legislative power received by referendum in the -- the reason i say smiley might help is simply because it says be a little flexible about that. >> i think it says a little bit flexible about the lawmaking authority of the state legislature. so don't think you've been given some new key that allows you to make laws without the process of the governor being involved at all. i do think smiley's very helpful, not only does it answer the body question but the parties disputed this. and the other side in smiley said, we win this case because legislature means the lawmaking authority. the other side said, no, it means the body. this court said, you're right, it means the body. but critically it's a lawmaking function, therefore it's subject to gubernatorial veto. i think they would have been flabbergasted to find out the legislature which they just defined as the representative body of the people could be cut out entirely. >> i wouldn't think, mr.

clement, that the overriding principle of smiley and hildebrandt and hawk is when it comes to this particular provision, and this particular provision as compared to the seventeenth amendment, which is the comparison and the contrast that hawk sets up when it comes to this particular provision we need to show a lot of respect to the states' own decisions about how legislative power ought to be exercised. that seems to me the overriding principle of the three cases. >> i think what you have to show is respect for the way that the state says the state legislature can go about lawmaking. but it is completely different to say it's okay to cut the state legislature out of the process entirely. let me avert very briefly to the 1911 act which, of course, is since repealed. i think the questions show that the actual statute that's now on the books has nothing to do with this case. but the irony of my friends on the other side relying on the legislation -- the legislative history of the 1911 act is the

whole point of the legislative history in 1911 is people in 1911 could read the statute on the books then said you're going to have the federal default rule kick in until the state legislature redistricts. they realized in 1911 that the state legislature meant the state legislature so they better change that law if they wanted to allow the referendum process. so the 1911 legislative history, not that i think you should particularly spend a lot of time with it, it actually cuts against them on the constitutional issue. it shows that there is a fundamental difference between the legislature and the people. and as the chief justice pointed out, if there weren't, then the framers could have stopped the election clause in each state. they wouldn't have had to say, by the legislatures thereof. of course the other side -- >> you can turn that around and say what that provision shows is really exactly what i just said, is that congress was also on board with this idea that the court had that when you look at that clause, the elections clause, that a lot of respect, a lot of deference, has to be given to the state's own definition.

>> and just if i may respond, justice kagan, i'm happy with giving deference to what the state legislature does. if that's constrained in the state by the rule that you have gubernatorial veto, override by referendum, something has to sit in committee for 30 days, the restrictions on the state legislature are fine but it has to be the state legislature. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. tonight on american history tv, a ford theater symposium on abraham lincoln's life and legacy beginning at 8:00 eastern jonathan white talks about lincoln's dreams of death. after that stephen goldman discusses union troops and lincoln's assassination. then mourning abraham lincoln. all this coming up tonight on

c-span3. freelance journalist james foley beheaded by isis terrorists in syria in august 2014. he was the first american killed by isis. in late february foley's parents and at the university of arizona on a panel discussion about journalists in conflict zone. the panel also includes former associated press correspondent anderson who was held hostage by iran for seven years. here is a preview. >> most of you who are not involved in journalism really don't understand how journalism works. you don't understand how we gather information, how we vet information, how we write them how we edit them. you don't know the process. it is a pretty rigorous process. the stuff you see in the media,

certainly in main line news organizations is pretty damn reliable. most of the reporters i know are doing it not for certainly the money or the fame or the thrill even those who go out into danger repeatedly, they are not there for the adrenaline rush, they are there because they really truly believe that it's important. that it's important for them to find and tell the truth as best they can about what is happening in the world and that you need to know those things. that is why they go into places like syria or other dangerous places. >> and you can see the entire event on journalists in conflict zones and their work tonight on c-span starting at 9:00 eastern.

>> the most memorable moment of this week for me was on hearing senator corey gardener at our lunch say you need to be firm in your principles but flexible in the details. i think it really reflects the solution the harsh polarization we're seeing across our country and methodology if all the senators, all the congressmen and women and state legislatures can adopt we can really come together as a country and solve many of our pertinenti. >> my favorite quote from julie adams, secretary of the senate. she said, remember to be humble and have a strong work ethic. be kind to the people you meet on the way up. you'll meet them again on the way down. >> in congress itself, we oftentimes have a lack of true statesmen. as much as i disagree with him, john mccain did something impressive committed to receipt van reform bill. in reading senate torture report

maintaining how staying away from torture is essential to the character of our democracy. at the point we have people who are willing to cross the aisle, willing to make these decisions with people who they may not often agree with that's essentially what we need to maintain the security, the integrity of our nation as we go on. >> high school students are generally ranked academically in the top 1% of the states. in washington, d.c. part of the youth program. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> next deputy secretary of state talks about u.s. engagement in central arab. he also discusses ongoing nuclear talks with iran and influence of russia and china in the region. from the brookings institution, this is an hour.

>> ladies and gentlemen, it's my great pleasure to welcome all of you here today. i'm fiona hill, director of the center on united states and europe. i'd like to extend a welcome on behalf of the brookings foreign policy program and also the global economy and development program at brookings for an address by our deputy isn't of state tony lincoln launching a new u.s. strategy for engagement with central asia. i think most of you are very familiar with tony lincoln but nonetheless i would like to lay out some of his distinguished career in government. he has been deputy secretary. also served as assistant to national security survivor. antony blinken. also national security adviser to the president and director senate foreign relations committee. just the most recent iteration

of antony's kreesh in adjustment. he said during administration 1994 to '1in a variety of capacity, including european affairs. he was also in the state department in other capacity in the 1990s. he did begin his career as most people in washington seem to do as a lawyer but we've forgiven him for that. he was also a reporter from "new republic" writing for "new york times" and foreign affairs. perfect segue to today's event. it will also feature a discussion with another secretary of state who began his career in journalism brookings president talbott, so their careers intersected during clinton administration. they worked together in various capacities. but there's also a very interesting, and many of you in the audience probably aware of

it, link to today's event. july 1997, just down the road, not here at brookings but just down the road in what was newly inaugurated central asia site strobe gave his own address as deputy secretary announcing u.s. strategy towards central asia which was also at that point linked to region the address many of you in the audience might remember it. it featured the type of discussion that i think strobe will probably -- a famous character from a daring british novels of the great game in central asia. strobe's point we're getting beyond that great game and looking for a whole new feature for the region. in 1997, as i mentioned caucus in asia got together around caspian sea idea of energy resources which were just opened to outside development. there is a great deal of question about the future

trajectory of all of these. under their real estate with russia, given the fact only five or six years into, independence after collapse of the soviet union. intervening 18 years a lot has happened on the ground in central asia, not just washington, d.c. but trajectory to caucuses in central asia diverged, central asia also found themselves on very different paths individually. energy resources still a focal point, --

again and again how your diplomatic leadership and dexterity continues to exert positive impact on tough issues to contend w i alsot( have a great debt of thanks to pay to strobe.ñ:f.

ñrcg6@q9jfqñr< 8

tied to stable central asia and at the same time we see a region of enormous potential. a regionxa could acte1 as an economic bridge from shanghai and provide opportunities to took root. a region that could offer energy to booming economies of southeast asia and region that could serve stabilizing and in dispensable partner for trafficking, terrorism and extremism. to help unleash potential united states stands committed to investing in the region's people and economic stability.

what i want to do today ist( lay out vision in central asia founded on two distinct ideas. first that4ñ our own security is enhanced by a more stable secure central asia thatl contributes to global efforts to combat terrorism and combat extremism. second, stability best achieved if nations are sovereign and independent countries securing their own borders, asia and benefiting with governmentsqñ accountable to their citizens. the united states wants to broaden and deepen by bilateral relationships with each of the states with central asia. at the same time we do not see relationships in the region as exclusive or in any way. need healthy, mutually beneficiali] relat%óáhu)u$ all neighbors, sovereign nations as they see fit free from pressure

and intimidation. their choice not ours or anyone els. engagement animated unique challenge, central asia reassert historic roll vital hub of commerce, ideas and ?1fulture. seize on model for growth and governance that delivers for citizens and connect them to the dividends of progress. it's a model countries of latin america and central asia have chosen putting them squarely on the path to long-term strength, stabilityue1 and prosperity. just over 20 years ago we were among the first to recognize independence sovereignty and territorial of kazakhstan, turkmenistan uzbekistan. it is this commitment government to government and people to9cymax;1 yufçkv1ta peoplezv engagement. today we have three important objectives for our engagement ñ

with each signal asian states, strengthen curt, close to economic ties and advancing advocating improved governance and human rights. let me spend a minutes talk about it. guñ first, each country distinctive history and will forge its future we know they have common regional security stability every year through high level bilateral we addresst( directly and pointedly. just last month mutual assistance treaty with kazakhstan, one of 70 united statesñi has around the world which provides solid basis for expanding law enforcement while protecting citizens in both countries. kazakhstan has been and continues to be aa5 leader in nonproliferation in global security. i remember very well and strobe

knows this even better one of the great successes of the clinton administration with someclñ of our european partners was helping to work with states of the former soviet union that in inherited nuclea/uñ weapons. kazakhstan and ukraine took brave and important steps of relinquishing the wealth it inherited when it -- contributing to future by funding afghan security forces and police and funding men and women to study at kazakhstani universities. strengthening law enforcement, count rg terrorism along long and poorest border with uzbekistan. contribution toss afghanistan effort including participation in the northern distribu n combat against narco and

threats. we respect the decision of our sovereign and independent partner to close transit center our relationship moved forward, as we continued to work together to address security challenges. in turkmenistan, we've helped government establish modern border control checkpoints with state-of-the-art technology to combat smuggling and fight human trafficking. by deepening security partnerships, we're also investing in a stable foundation for central asia to unlock its great economic potential. the images of the old silk road when central asia was truly at the crossroads of civilization does not have to be just a memory. the past can become prologue. today central asia not only bursting with resources but brimming with youthful entrepreneurial potential. a full half of its population is under the age of 30. in uzbekistan, around a third of

the population is actually closer in age to 20. to deliver on the aspirations of this new generation we want to help central asia build a solid basis for prosperity by integrating it into a global rules-based system. that's why we've been supporting efforts as members of the world trade organization. we expect long sought goal to be realized this year. our own nation's businesses, theirzv talent and technological leadership canu role helping region develop its ownt( culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. we will continue to build connections on both sides of the world. united states host add delegation from turkmenistan power sector, investment for u.s. companies this summer. now, despite these efforts, i think everyone recognizes central asia has a long way to go in building a more open cooperative and connected market

that fosters true entrepreneurship and benefits to ordinary people. the region remains one of the least integrated in the world with 6% of its trade occurring within central asia. as a result its own people are not benefiting from this enormous potential. part of the new silk road initiative, united states developing regime's connectivity improving trade and infrastructure standardizing border procedures strengthening link between energy producers and consumers and why we're helping to build a regional energy market to connect central asia's tremendous supplies of natural gas andzv hydropower to 1.6 billion energy hungry kurls in asia. electricity line will bring sur place electricity from kyrgyzstan to afghanistan and pakistan where 80 million people lack< access to electricity. it'sa5fkq notableçó afghanistan is

embracing asian connectivity. some may have heard whenzom president ghani address and extolled energy trade for afghanistan's economic viability. a lot of work being done on physical infrastructure to connect these ]iñcountries. just asn8 important as that physical infrastructure are the policies that go with it the soft infrastructure of laws, of regulations, of agreements between and among government to facilitate the flow of people, of goods and of financa helping in that area, too. ultimately for central arab to fully reap benefits of shared prosperity, it has some choices to make political and economic practices in the past limited potential for long-term diversified growth and the possibilities of the future. the surge that comes from building open societies at home and joining dynamic, just and rules-based global marketzjx"(i%

over the world including central asia. these values core engagement with the region and sink to the lasting stability we seek. across every bilateral relationship we continue to advocate forcefully,nb greater respect for human rights, stronger voice for civil society and greater religious freedom.

progress has been halting. but i believe we arer to address because of the these governments and civilv we know a government accountable to citizens can sustain security, defend their own+ sovereignty and contribute to regional stability. upholding freedom of expression political law and pluralism gives citizensr diminish chance they will be drawn to violent a5extremism. these same freedoms are also vital to building innovative societies. in the past when we talked about the wealth of a nation and what co)[/%quqthe wealth, physical size, abundance in national natural resources, strength of its military literally the size of its population.

all of these things. all these things are relevant, but in the 21st century, lies in human resources and ñhf7 the potential of a country to maximize resources. to let them be free, innovate. those are the countries we most want to engage with, that's wp we're looking for. it's something president obama vice presidentn biden, vice president kerry have all spoken to with great passion. as the president put it, we're far more likely to invest our energy, countries that work with us, invest in people embrace society where everyone can contribute sunni, europe to asia africa to americas, nation's persevered on democratic path emerged more!u prosperous, peaceful and invested in upholding our commonn security and common humanity. so in central asia we will

continue to support civil society and its ability to serve)-v]iy ?!deq84i communities and speak up for peaceful change without government interference consistent with the president's stand with civil society initiative. we'll continue to advocate for free media and more open political systems and urge for people imprisoned for the exercise of their political views or religious faith we will support greater economic transparency and efforts to combat corruption. as strobe knows very well we have spoken about these issues for many years in central asia. they are arguably moreñi important as the region seeks our engagement and assistance in its own development and integration. we help nurture and development parliamentary democracy, the onl,one in the region. our assistance and exchange programs emphasize rule of law reforms, support of society, create new educational opportunities. one of the things we're very

proud of is having hosted nearly 80% of turkey's parliamentarians in the united states where they discuss with american officials and representatives of civil society. time and again we wxg4 lp of building lifelong relationships helping expand marketplace with ñ ideas and foster greater democratic ethos. today educational exchange programs and english language exchange programs across central asia. in ahtkazakhstan 400,0002 in first grade starting to learn english thanks to an impressive effort by minister ofçó education science to introduce tri-lingual education in the entire school system. that minister of education happens to bec luminous of exchange programs. inr parliament participated in 30 town hall meetings across the country thanks to org%[% )já efforts of the young man who

himself experienced legislative fellow in the united states where he observed 2012 presidentialxd elections. building these connections between our people not only nurture shared betwee7,[932+ t sw) peoples not only nurtures shared understanding and values it strengthens oureh ability to confront challenges together.b. as (u$er"n today, i know a lot of focus is on the talks in switzerland regarding iran's nuclear program. secretary kerry, wendy sherman, zo cf1 o and other colleagues are there as we speak. and i know no one is watching more closelfkhan the countries of central asia. iran's historic and cultural ties to the region are deep and long-standing. and for countries that focus on jcgv the connectivity to the rest of the world iran stands as a potential gateway to europe as well as a maritime route to asia. ñ but the region's unique complexities don't stop at its

border with siran. from the positions as the heart of asia theç china and its growing economic influence. it supports afghanistan's cautiously hopeful transition. ñ and it hedges against russia's renewed aggression. and it warily guards against the growing growth of extremist ideology among its youth. china looms large in the region. with its ambitious plans to advance asian connectivity through maritime and overland routes. it's committed tens of billions of dollars

own integration into the broader asia region. on the other hand, russia's actions on its periphery, including its violation of the territorial integrity and sof inty of ukraine threaten the very foundation of international order. not only in the region, not only in europe, but beyond and around the world. as russia and the separatists ñ continue to destabilize eastern ukraine they're doing more than violating the borders of one country. they are threatening the fundamental principles that we all have a stake in defending in europe, and indeed around the world. the principlesñ that borders and territorial integrity of a democratic state cannot be changed by force. that it is the inherent right of citizens in a democra their own decisions about their country's future. that linguistic nationalism, something we thought was confined to the dust bin of history, cannot be allowed.

letters of it can become especially if leading members are bound by common roles and should raise the cost if they do not live up to the solemn limits they make. and i want to go back to something i brought up briefly a moment ago, which is the soviet c;ñ union giving up the nuclear weapons they inherited when the soviet union dissolved. as i noted besides kazakhstanp, i know that ukraine was one of those. in the case of ukraine, it did so in exchange for assurances from three countries, that is its territorial integrity and sovereignty would be respected. those three countries were the united kingdom, united states, but what does it say not only to ukraine but to countries around the world=ñ when those solemn assurances can be ÷g=w-ri

they're feeling the impact of russia's economic weakness more than most. we understand that anxiety. we do not ask any country to choose ties with the u.s. to the exclusion of anyone else. we reject the false choices imposed by anyone else. we fully support the aspirations of central asian states to pursue a multivector foreign and

economic policy. we know that the threat of violent extremism is yet another growing danger for the region. earlier this year the united states hosted the countering violent extremist summit to find the most effective ways to disrupt and destroy isil's finance and recruitment efforts and the broader challenge of violent extremities. kazakhstan and kyrgyzstan sent high level delegates to the summit. the summit that we held in washington not only considered the challenge of countering extremism as it exists today but also preventing it reaching a large pool of alienated young men and women susceptible to the siren call of extremism by giving them more economic and political opportunities. it's a challenge that requires all of us to take stock to ensure that we're fostering society in which all citizens feel that they have a stake. in this atmosphere of uncertainty it can be tempting

to turn inward. to build high walls. to close borders. but the very geopolitics that give central asian states cause for anxiety also incentivize them to embrace a new and different kind of future. our continued engagement and the long-term security and prosperity of the region depend ultimately on the choices the central asian states make today to try to seize this future and live up to the aspirations of their own citizens. in this journey, our commitment to them, and to their citizens, is as strong today as it was 23 years ago when the united states was among the very first to recognize their independence. it's a commitment not only between government, but between people. between our universities as they share knowledge, exchange students and foster a culture of innovation. between our businesses as they create jobs spur investment, and develop the region's frontier markets. and between our leaders as they

work together to advance the central reforms, to overcome common challenges, to unlock the potential of central asia for this generation, and generations to come. thank you very much. [ applause ] tony while you've got the mike thank you very much for that terrific opening. let me also use the occasion to say all of us who have watched your stewardship of the bureau that you're in charge of, which has got to be one of the more vivers portfolios in the state department, namely central asia and south asia extend our thanks and congratulations for the good work you've done. thank you for being here today. tony, that was a terrific overview.

i hear a little bit of residents from history that we were saying goodbye to all those years ago. maybe at least one of the headlines could be welcome back, flashman. so let's stay if we could for a moment on the last points you talked about, on the minds of all of us and that is the role of russia. and maybe you could zero in on kazakhstan and in particular, not least because, of course, as you said president nazarbayev and his government joined the ukrainians and the belarussians in getting rid of the nuclear weapons, they also have a very significant russian population. a point that president putin underscored in a meeting with

nazarbayev and nazarbayev took umbrage from that when president putin questioned whether kazakhstan was even a state. is that still resonating in the region, not just in kazakhstan, but throughout the region? >> well i think it is resonating in the region and what's going on as we discussed a moment ago in ukraine is resonating in the region. what is going on in georgia and continues to go on resonates in the region. moldova, all these things resonate. but i think what is challenging is this, first we believe strongly that the countries of central asia should have peaceful, prosperous beneficial relations with all their neighbors, including russia. and russia is going to have a critical role to play in central asia going forward. the trade relationship is very important. remittances have been significant, and the downturn in

the russian economy poses a real challenge for the many central asians who are there and are sending money back home. as we try to make clear again and again we're not trying to pose some zero-sum choice. indeed when it comes to for example, the russian economic union, the customs union, we're not telling countries that they shouldn't join. to the contrary it would be totally inconsistent with exactly what we've been telling the russians when it comes to ukraine, which is countries should be able to decide for themselves with whom they want to associate, and the basic decisions are about their future. so i think the challenge is that we want to encourage positive relations, but it is russia's actions themselves that are sending a very discordant message to countries in the region. and that is causing them to look more and more for alternatives and different choices. i think maximizing those choices, maximizing those

opportunities is a good thing. we hope to get to the point where russia changes its approach and provides the benefits that come with long and in many ways strong relations, especially in that trade area. right now my sense is that the anxiety level is extremely high. >> how does that translate into the attitude of the central asian state towards the prospects for a eurasian union, as a clearly as an alternative to the european union? >> look i think, again we've been very clear. we have not said to anyone do not join, and indeed we have kazakhstan and kyrgyzstan that have and we're working very closely right now with kyrgyzstan on its membership. something that we hope will be realized this year. what we do want to see when it comes to that union is that countries uphold their broader

international commitments, and that it doesn't actually constrict trade, it advances it. and so as a result for example of going to the union is more tariffs, or nontariff barriers that's moving in the wrong direction, backwards. there is nothing fundamentally inconsistent with doing that and participating in a larger international system. we are encouraging countries to do that. i think what a number of countries in the region are seeing right now is russia that has mismanaged its economy going back some time, second, the sanctions, as the result of the sanctions in ukraine that had given it a significant setback and oil prices which, perhaps more than anything else have undermined it. those two things taken together make the benefits of engagement with russia economically a lot less than they were even a couple of years ago. and i think again that is

causing countries to look, to diversify their economic relationships. >> you made a point of connecting american aspirations and concerns about political pluralism, and you also in that context flagged the danger of extremism and terrorism. there is a neighboring region, the caucasus, where that is particularly a phenomenon that seems to be growing. i would say in parenthesis not least perhaps because of the russian policy of emphasizing ethnic russian nationalism, which does not play very well in those parts of the russian federation or for that matter in the former soviet union, which

are historically not slavic and indeed are at least culturally islamic in much of their legacy. do you hear and do your colleagues in our diplomatic posts in the region hear much concern about the rise of islamic extremism in the caucasus bleeding over into other parts of the former soviet space? >> yes, that's a -- that's a real concern. it is something we hear more and more. but it is not only the bleed over, it is the potential in a number of these countries for that kind of extremism to emerge within them. the question is and the challenge is, how do you handle that? and here we face one of our very difficult dilemmas that we see in other parts of the world,

because on the one hand we are working in the relative short term to help countries build their capacity to do with security challenges, including the potential challenges of extremism. and there we have been working very effectively, and the expertise we bring to the table is something that is very much sought by our partners. on the other hand, as i suggested a little while ago, none of this in our judgment is sustainable. that is, real security and stability, are not sustainable absent more open and effective governance, absent more and effective institutions, and absent the basic respect for human rights and democratic development. a big part of the conversation with our partners is on the one hand helping them develop security capacity, including to deal with extremism, but also to make the case consistently and with conviction that ultimately the path to sustainability has to go through more effective governance, institutions, and

democracy. >> going back to the '90s again, back then there seemed to be some hope for the development of security ties between all of the former republics of the ussr. i'm thinking particularly a partnership for peace and the euro-asian partnership council. my sense, and correct me if i'm wrong, is that those are pretty much moribund or at least pretty quiet, and can you imagine that there might be a resurgence of interest in that kind of security cooperation? >> well, first i would say that certain aspects of that are actually alive and well including aspects of the partnership of peace. and we've seen the engagement of partner countries for example in afghanistan has been extremely effective. some on the partnership, others on the outside of them. if you look at the contributions of a country like georgia to what we have done in afghanistan, it is quite extraordinary on a per capita basis. truly amazing.

my own sense is that the big motivating factor right now is the potential for greater economic connectivity. and interconnectivity. and the potential there is extraordinary. but i also agree at least with what i think is the implication of your question that given the incredibly and increasingly uncertain environment, there may be more and more of a driver for these kind of security partnerships to take some greater life and energy, and that is something we are looking at. i think ultimately the more we're able to connect these countries, the more they're able to benefit from shared prosperity the greater the foundation for stability we'll have going forward. >> i'm going to go to the audience here in a minute so starting with johans if that's all right but i do want to ask about one other fairly major regional player and that's china. would you say a little bit on that? and insofar as maybe not a great

game but a new game is under way is china a major player in that? >> china is very much a major player. and as i tried to suggest we think that this is largely complimentary to what we're trying to do. and indeed we're looking at ways to more effectively coordinate with the chinese. the investments that they're making in the physical infrastructure, that ultimately can connect these countries are extraordinary. and usualhugely beneficial. beneficial to people in these countries in terms of giving them opportunity. potentially beneficial to our own businesses that are trying to work there. and there is no zero-sum choice here. these things can work together. our own engagement china's engagement. but i would say this, the engagement and the investment are very important, but how they're done is also important. and so i think countries will

ask questions about the engagement and the investment. whose workers are being used to advance it? what kind of standards are being upheld when it comes to the rights of workers, when it comes to the environment? what about the quality of the projects? all of these things are also critical. and i think they are in effect market forces that are driving the chinese to hopefully raise their own game. the more they do that the more we're able to work to the in a complementary fashion to advance what we think would be in the interests of central asia but also in our own interests and china's interests. but there is no doubt that they are engaged and a growing bigger player. >> would you say, and this may sound like a leading question, but i know as a good lawyer you won't be led, does the fear and concern in central asia about russia play to china's advantage, as it does perhaps to

some degree to our own advantage? >> the answer is yes. but i think the incentives for most of the countries in the region is to look for various outlets. various points of contact. it's us. it is russia, because again a lot of history and strong trading relationships. is china because of its extraordinary investments. and the potential there. and depending on the iran resolution over the next year or more, it could be iran, as well as a gateway to europe, as a gateway to india. so if i'm sitting in any of the capitals in central asia, i'm looking at all of these possibilities. now i personally they that the united states can bring to the table things that some of these other countries can't. even if we're further away we bring a certain way of doing business. certain values. certain standards, that i think are even more beneficial to people. but it is not a zero-sum choice. the more we can get other

countries to raise their own game and raise their standards as they engage with central asia the better off the people in the region will be, and the better off we'll be. >> which brings to mind one other country and then we will go to joehanns. i remember ozal at the time the ussr was disintegrating making no secret of a turkish dream given the turkish influences in the region we're talking about. how is turkey seen today, particularly given some of the tumult that's going on there? >> it's a good question. and frankly one that i'm almost more comfortable asking of our partners in the region. i do not want to necessarily suggest how they are seeing turkey. i think you are right about turkey's interests and ambitions. it is also true that the turks have a tremendous amount on their hands in their immediate environment right now and that's challenging.

the bottom line, at least from our perspective again is this is not about creating false choices or imposing choices on our partners in central asia. one of the differences that we bring to the table is a profound and strong belief that our partners have a right to make their own decisions and make their own choices about the future. and if that involves us, so much the better. but if it involves other countries in the region, that is their decision. >> johans? >> thank you very much. from brookings. i thank you for this presentation. i think it's a very timely initiative to articulate the interests and the strategy of the u.s. in the region, not least because as you go around the region you see a lot of questions asked. how we will engage and shape the future. you talk i think very eloquently about the interests. to me the question looking ahead is, so how will the engagement change?

looking back in relative terms i think relative to the engagement of the u.s. elsewhere in the world and relative to the engagement of other major partners of the region china and russia in particular, i think it's fair to say the engagement of the u.s. in the region in the past has been relatively modest. so looking ahead how is the engagement going to change? and how are you going to translate and leverage modest likely continued modest engagement relative to these other engagements into an effective impact on the ground in terms of the objectives you have set which from my perspective actually are very valid? >> it is an excellent question and i think a few things suggest themselves. one is that as we all know 90% of life is showing up. so the consistent and hopefully high-level engagement we have makes a difference, certainly on an official level. i think we actually have to do more than that. obviously the assistant

secretary has been a regular visitor and very deeply engaged. as has a lot of officials across the board. it is something we are looking at over the next couple of years to elevate even that game. we have as you know a lot of very regular structured dialogue on a whole host of issues that are going forward. and are really doing the day in, day out, month in month out business of building these relationships. and then what is really important at least to me is that even as we have these critical government to government relations and as we do even better in building that engagement and being there that the other aspects of our connectivity and engagement are what really are going to sustain and build these relationships. the people to people aspect and especially the economic and trade aspect. and the more we are able to

build connectivity i was talking about, the more we are able to engage people in both countries with each other, the stronger that foundation is going to be. again, it may be a bias, but even though we have the disadvantage of being geographically far away, because we have interests, because we see potential, and because we bring something to the table as i suggested that may be something close in approximate timty neighbors don't my sense is that the central asian countries are very much looking to us for that engagement. and we now just have to deliver on it. >> thank you. the lady right here. please wait for the mike. identify yourself and ask a short question. >> my name is karen, i work for the bbc. you talked about countering violent extremism and some of the expertise that americans bring. if you could tell us more about that that would be good. >> thank you. let me say this, it's not just the expertise that we bring. it is hopefully the expertise

that many members of the international community bring. one of the most interesting aspects of the summit meeting we held about a month ago in washington was that we brought not only countries, not only governments, but also ngos, technologists, academics to the table from around the world. and what we found is different aspects of the problem have often been tackled somewhere, someplace, by someone in a relatively effective way, and it is sharing that information and bringing it to scale that makes the big difference. for example, one of the big problems in terms of fostering radicalism and extremism is radicalization of prisons. two of the three attackers in the "charlie hebdo" attack in paris had been criminals who went to jail and were radicalized in jail. some countries have actually had great experience with this and have developed very interesting programs to deal with it. so it's sharing that knowledge and expertise that's critical.

that's one of the things that 9 convening authority, in a sense, that we can bring to the table. and the fact that kyrgyzstan pakistan were active participants in the summit hopefully will make a difference to them. but you know there's a very long discussion one could have about what are the motivating factors that cause people to turn to extremism. what do you do about that? and was a lot of what we discussed. but i think to me the other thing that stands out that we want to try to advance is that it is critical to counter the violent extremism that we confront today. sometimes that means when it comes to people who are beyond the reach of reason, using military and counterterrorism means to deal with it. but preventing it in the first place is obviously even more beneficial. and there, i come back to what i talked about earlier. ultimately countries have an obligation if they really want to prevent it to try to build more open societies, because the

more closed off you are, the more people can't find outlets for their frustrations, and their fears that are productive outlets. you can almost guarantee that they will find negative outlets for that and ultimately that undermines the stability that you seek. so i think carrying that message and working in a productive way with countries to help develop those outlets is one of the most important things we can bring to the table. >> the lady there. >> thank you. i'm with hong kong tv. could you please talk about the u.s. stance on one of the very important chinese initiatives to engage central asia which is one bell one road? is this also complementary to the new silk road strategy you talk about and also today is the deadline of the aiib. are you surprised to see 47 members to join the aiib and are you embarrassed?

thank you. >> thank you for that question. maybe except for the last couple of words. two things. again just to come back to the basic proposition. i strongly believe that many of the efforts that china is making including to its engagement and its very committed investment are very complementary with what we're trying to do and will be very beneficial to people in the region. but it does tie in in a sense nicely to the infrastructure investment bank. our concern with the bank is this, we're -- we don't oppose it. to the contrary. the more investment you can bring in infrastructure in the region, in asia or broadly we think the better. it's desperately needed. it's a foundation for economic progress. but as i suggested earlier, how it happens is vitally important. and so the concerns that we've had about the infrastructure

investment bank really go to its own standards. what are the governance rules of the bank? what role does the board of directors play? what are the standards that it would advance in terms of worker rights, environmental protections, intellectual property, capital requirements, things of that nature? we've spent 70 years building international institutions to support financing and developing around the world, and in doing that we have tried throughout to raise the standards of these institutions in a way that benefits the people that they are working with. what we don't want to see happen is some kind of race to the bottom where the standards are diluted. that has been our only concern. so my sense is that -- and indeed, not just our concern, even the countries that have decided to join have been very clear about their own concerns, and indeed, i think one of the reasons that a number of

countries has joined is the hope that they can help shape that governance and those standards. so if those standards are at the same level and made even greater than the standards that have already been established in other international institutions that's a very good thing. if they're not, then unfortunately i think the institution could actually undermine the very goals it's seeking to achieve. >> by the way, the prime minister of sweden here this morning made very much the same cautionary point. yes, the lady right here. and then we'll come to you, sir. >> i learned that central asia is very much similar to southeast asia. and thank you for a very comprehensive program you have put forth, including human rights and everything. i know that last week on the 19th you met with vietnamese minister of the public security.

and i would like to ask essentially, we are coming into the 20th year of the normalized relationship, and we've seen a lot of positive achievements between the two countries. but is there a lesson that we can learn and apply to central asia, and is there a negative lesson that we can also learn and apply and avoid? >> thank you. i have to say one of the great success stories i think of recent years has been the deeper and deeper relationship to the united states and vietnam have developed. we are seeing that merge more and more in recent years, in recent weeks, and indeed i had the opportunity to meet with several senior officials from vietnam. i hope and go there in the not-too-distant future.

i think it is motivated by a number of things. first and foremost, i think it is motivated by an increasingly open view among the vietnamese leadership about what the best future for the country is in terms of its own progress in terms of its own standards, in terms of its own integration with the region. and that's been very important. and something that we're very pleased with. second, i have to tell you it is also motivated by some of china's actions in the region. we talked a little bit about russia before. we talked about the tremendously positive role china can and indeed in many ways is playing. particularly through its investments in infrastructure industry. but there's also nervousness in the region as well about some of china's actions. and other areas.

that is causing countries to look to us as a potential foundation of stability. this digresses a little bit, but still goes to the point. i was in china about two months ago. actually on the first trip i took in this new job. we had very interesting conversations and one of the great things that's happened in recent years is we are constantly expanding our base of cooperation with china. and working to the in more and more areas. just last year obviously the leadership the united states and china showed on climate change hopefully will have a real impact on other countries as we head to the tariff negotiations at the end of the year. the work that china did on ebola was very, very significant. and even in our military to military relationship we've seen great progress building confidence. but some of the actions that china takes in its own region

are causing other countries to raise real questions. have real concerns. so in some of the conversations that we had, one of the things i suggested to our chinese partners and friends is that, you know, even though our systems and countries are obviously very different, and very different histories, very different stages of development in some ways, china today is a little bit like where the united states was after world war ii. and then we were emerging as a great power. and our leaders have to decide how we would use that power. what they decided to do was to write rules develop norms and build institutions that in many ways constrained our power but that gave other countries a voice and a vote and a sense that they, too, could decide the future. and this has centralized those countries from getting together to check our power. it has benefited greatly in the 50, 60, 70 years since.

it is something i suggest our chinese friends might find a useful historical analysis. >> we give the last question to a stalwart of the service, and as you know, a former ambassador. >> excellent remarks. i'd like to come to the notion of democratic values issue. over the last two decades we've developed a series of programs and tools of our ambassadors and embassies to use to promote civil society, democratic elections, freedom of expression, and yet in a lot of these societies now we're facing an environment where civil society is being shut down. the leaders that we trained are arrested. journalists who are part of rprl are arrested. my question is, aren't the tools and programs today adequate to address an environment that is far less friendly than it was two decades ago when we had such

great hope for these programs? >> i would say that they are necessary but not adequate. and that we are -- we constantly have to re-evaluate whether there are better and more effective ways of advancing that mission through exactly the reasons that you state. so my own sense is that we have to keep at it with even more determination. but we also have to think much more creatively about whether there are different ways, additional ways, of engaging. how do we better use the media and new technology? how can we think about working with partner countries that may have more easy access than we do. but want to advance this mission? and then, you know, i think that hopefully, the more we can build and strengthen the relationships, even with government and their confidence level increases in us, and in

the sustainability of our own engagement, we may create some ability to get them to think more broadly and progressively, about the way they approach these issues. but it's also being clear and fort right and holding people accountable for their actions. as you know, we publish annual reports on human rights on religious freedom on trafficking of persons and others. those are important documents. even if they don't sometimes get the attention here that we think, as you know very well, they get a lot of tension in the countries that they talk about. and of course, we have to hold ourselves to our own standards. otherwise, it rings a little bit hollow. the effort to build a more perfect union at home is never more coordinated than it is now. so bottom line is, i think your question is very well placed. and -- we need to do more, we need to do different, even as we

sustain and push what we're already doing. >> you've been mighty clear and forthright yourself. and i know that you've got a long day ahead of you still, if memory serves. and i hope all of you will join me in thanking tony for his kongensy, his candor and for being with us. >> thank you. [ applause ] screeria -- nigeria. - with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most

relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. and then on weekends c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story. including six unique series, the civil war's 150th anniversary. visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf, with the best-known american history writers. the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series, reel america, featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry, and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. and we're live this morning at the center for strategic and international studies here in

washington, d.c. for remarks from undersecretary of the army brad carson. this morning he's expected to discuss the army's vision for future operations. he was sworn in last year after previously serving as the branch's general counsel. >> we're very honored to have this morning undersecretary carson. -- one year, well familiar with all these [ inaudible ] and --

[ inaudible ] and is now [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ] your thoughts --

[ inaudible ] [ inaudible ] -- your hand -- [ inaudible ]

we're very happy to have you. >> thank you all for coming today. -- your thoughts and the wisdom you have -- working now. so a pleasure for me to be here. i do feel like i should be paying tuition to the audience rather than having me talk. just the people i know in the front row, officers and former undersecretaries of the army woody, who knows the army better than probably all of us combined having around and caring for the institution for such a long time. i know we have fellows here who are active army officers and people from other services too. so thank you. and i can say having been in the

office now a year i have learned tremendously from many of the people i just called out. and from the senior officers who have made me much smarter. today i talk about known vags and the larger sense of that. this is the anniversary this very month, the 150th anniversary at the end of the civil war. and when i go to barnes & noble here is a spate of books out were the civil war that celebrates this momentous occasion and often have on the cover a picture that even though fairly recent image have become almost iconic and it is called the surrender, and it is grant and lee at appomattox courthouse. lee, of course, looking regal as history remembers him to be. grant looking more assembled than his personal life would otherwise suggest he probably was. 14 other people appear in the portrait who by all accounts

weren't actually there but played some role in the day's events. an important portrait and it begin begins to the end of that conflict. there's another portrait there i've always admired more about the civil war. it was painted contemporaneously with the event in 1868 and it's called the peacemaker. and sitting around were sherman, ulysses s. grant david pointer a rear admiral, and president abraham lincoln. and it occurred one month before the appomattox courthouse and the events with sherman recount in his memoirs what was discussed the last few weeks of the war as well as or as importantly plan about what the months or years after this conflict ended, and how it would play out. that portrait is not that well known of those four men hangs ow

in the tank where the joint chiefs meet to decide --. it has become famous over time because a version of it is in the white house, george w. bush referred to it after september 11th. and now it hangs in the private dining room of president obama, the peacemaker. i think of that because we are now although re-engaged in iraq in the army facing a lot about what the army will do as you leave now 14 years of hard conflict. conflict that all the service has played a unique role in but no one more so than the u.s. army. that has fought and bled you go to the national cemetery you'll see a lot of army soldiers there. we have sacrificed so very much. so we think about what the future is going to be. and there are people here today who say that is deeply on his mind in the last few months of his tenure. we have initiatives that are publicized for those who care

about the defense matters such as force 2025 and beyond. we have a new army operating contract, general mcmaster has been on this very stage. he's much easier to get a hold of than me actually. he is a terrific salesman and not only a salesman he's a product development from his mind that many have ideas about the future of the arab spring and he is a spokesman for how the army is thinking about these things. i thought we'd talk about how i think about it, and think in terms of men who are in that portrait. because you know with just a little bit of sympathy you must think they were awed by the four years that had preceded them. they could never have imagined how the world would change so dramatically. a u.s. army that at the beginning was engaged in infrastructure projects for the united states, coastal defense where people were called up to fight at manassas, and senators

and congressmen and their wives would go watch on the hills nearby. called up with just a few weeks, that by the end of this, with railroads and telegraphs, and proliferation of rifles mass industrial warfare that previewed the conflict that we would see over the next 50 to 70 years. world war i, world war ii, the war between russia and japan, the bull wars, the franco prussian war, you know the fact that sherman himself right here became not simply a pioneer of practice but for almost a person who embodies the idea of total war. that the 20th century came to define in sump a bloody fashion. you think they must have really been awed at the transformation that they had seen. the army finds itself similarly today in a position where it is easy to be awed by the world. the new slogan for the army is win in the complex world.

the four star general who is in charge of command will talk a lot about this issue. it is a fascinating thing. it is easy to be arrogant and think that we are in some unique time that the world is changing underneath us more so than it was 60 years ago or 100 years ago it is easy to be arrogant but it does seem as if there is something afoot. this revolution in communications that allows the world to act in simultaneous fashion. now that is something that is truly anew. small autonomous groups that once had a collective action problem, that couldn't formally get together and work until now the obstacles of coordination now use information technology to do their stats. there are real changes afoot. where not that long ago just a couple hundred years ago war was led by men who fought with individual weapons, sometimes leading from the front themselves offering leadership more by more example than any kind of like tactical or strategic expertise that is now

fought not simply by systems but systems of systems. require greater specialization from all of the services. in world war ii there was just a huge dozen moss across all of the services. we have specialties of subspecialties. all of these require technical expertise. they demand a commander to know more and more. the information flows are therefore greater. the ability to create some form of knowledge or wisdom out of that data becomes incredible intellectual challenge. that it solves only by having rules of thumb, heuristics that allow you to put these in some place which are central but if in error can lead to terrible, even tragic decisions. the army is in a new world where we not only have a response with russia a rise in china of course

isil yemen, we have nonstate actors that are expanding their capabilities access to technology that was once unthinkable. at the same time that globalization has taken real root, we see a return to primitive identity formation that attacks the nation-state from below. just as globalization attacks it from above. this is the world the army finds itself in. and tries to adapt itself to. so for me i would say there are three challenges that might be worth mentioning today. one is material, the second is managerial, and the third for lack of a better term is metaphysical. the material one is obvious to all. the army has a budget this year of about $120 billion. that's a lot of money. not as much as the air force is getting. but more than any other cabinet agency with the exception of veterans affairs the army is

still a big part. you have $25 billion in other funds to add to that. a lot of money but far less than a few years ago when we anticipated a budget for the fiscal year was expected to be $150 billion. so the last few years we have found in our planning processes about a $30 billion cut for us to make. as a result, there are real consequences. mostly in what we think about materiel. the modernization, the user development programs for the army right doesn't have near enough funds for them. over the next five years we'll spend maybe $120 billion on modernization, the major drivers of that being aviation network, missile defense vehicles, but there's not enough to do all of these kind of things. and the very expensive programs, and we have a challenge in thinking through how we prioritize among them, how we move to new programs that don't threaten to consume the entire budget. if we want a future fighting

vehicle for example, how you reconcile the cost of that. with the other programs, with the abrams and the strikers, not to mention other parts of the portfolio. so there's a real materiel problem in that respect. there's a managerial issue, as well. my challenge and i think secretary mchugh and chief's challenge is to create an institutional army commensurate with the operational force. the operational force is great at planning, they move out and do things tact camp acumen, the leadership of people in the field is incredible. the headquarters by contrast is not nearly as agile. it is not just -- the very appendages of the bureaucracy. so how you get things done, how you make decisions how you push

things through as a leader rather than simply react to matters that rise up to you from the counsel of colonels and the one star officer meetings the two star officer meetings the three star officer meetings, which is you apower employment slide and you're left with nothing to do but acquiesce in decisions and there were alternatives too so how do you manage the army in a better way? we try to do that part of it is by slimming down the headquarters. the army took very seriously what secretary hagel ordered us to do. the headquarters has been reduced by more than 20% and will be executed over the next four or five years to do that. and we haven't just gone through and demanded people make arbitrary cuts. we have tried to reduce the number of echelons. there were in headquarters often nine echelons between the secretaries and the lowest level people. sometimes our senior economic tifrs people who are the

officers the echelon six or seven very far down in the organization where you wouldn't think a leader of that stature would otherwise be. we have spans of control people who were managing one or two or three people when army regulations contemplates managing 10 to 12 as a minimum and best practices in the corporate sector suggest 6 to 8. we've changed that to where now everyone in headquarters with few exceptions manages at least eight people. we had people reporting to others of the exact same grade. cs-15s reporting or colonel to colonel to colonel things that put the entire planning of careers, and information transmission on hold and therefore it is a belief of mine and with research from the community that every echelon a message is transmitted you lose perhaps 10% or 15% of its fidelity. you could imagine sending a

message down to echelon nine and having it chop all the way back up right? the signal gets way out of balance. and so managing the army in a better way. army management action group. the army analog to what the deputy secretary's management action group where we have meetings about the really important decisions. the army plan 60 years it has existed, it was read by few. although people spend many years upon many years creating it we completely revamped that for the army revision that will be released. strategic planning as vigorous at the headquarters as it is in our subordinate command. not simply an end list or the discussion of important questions but a plan that deals with the real obstacles we face.

these are the managerial challenges of how you put your imprint on the army as a senior leader. and metaphysical by which i mean the army is in one of its periodic identity crises. this happens after every major war, when people seem to turn away maybe for land power but the consequences of these conflicts, make people say you'll never do this again, whether it's after world war ii or korea or vietnam, and now after iraq, as well. and it's very real. we see that right? the v.a. the budget i mentioned has grown larger than the army's. that's really a recent development over the last decade we see the v.a. budget explode. and we will be dealing these wars for decades to come. we're still paying afterall widows benefits to a survivor from the u.s. civil war. and giving away, there is every

reason to doubt that not only my son will see people who receive the benefits but my son's son's son well into the next century will have people who exist around who are receiving some benefit that flowed from the consequences of iraq and afghanistan. but trying to figure out where it goes that is why i mentioned the general's great work in the army operating concept what is the army? what is our role? if a country believes that the pacific theater is the future, what's the army's place in it? what positions do we revitalize? what lessons do we learn from iraq and afghanistan that we want to make sure we don't forget as someone say we forgot after vietnam. how do we institutionally change? how do we become more innovative? how do we become agile and adaptive? what do these terms really mean to be agile? i mean that's a great term. one doesn't want to be not agile yes i accept that. what does it really mean in

terms of what we program and how we think about these things. to ask the kind of tough questions. and trying to also convince a nation that is no doubt fatigued by fatigued by a decade in these conflicts. the land power is going to be essential because in the end the army has a singular competitive advantage. no other service has this which is we can make you change your mind when you otherwise don't want to. we can do aviation make you change your mind persuade you that the costs outweigh the benefit. s. the army can kick in your door and make you stop doing what you want to do when you'd otherwise make you continue.

and we have to do a great. job of explaining that. let me conclude with this about trying to explain others better. this has resonance for me. one can try to reconcile it later. often times i will talk to my father, who is a veteran of the first infantry division. we'll have 500,000 people. there's a lot larger than nearly every army in the world with the exception of a couple. so that seems like a large amount of people to have. so why can't you get by with 400 or 300 or some people think they have said 250,000 person u.s. army in the active component. it does seem like a loss, but those know how the army really works, the numbers are not quite as significant as they seem. . because of that 500,000, we have 70,000 who are manning training

and equipping. we have another 80,000 or so who are trainees or students. there's 150,000 who are right off the table. we have 30,000 special forces doing their own kinds of missions. we have another 30,000 or 40,000 doing other national missions, patriot batteries, the old guard, these kind of things. so now you're down to maybe 300,000 people. well, if you're going to rotate these folks through, which we have to do for both effective effectiveness and basic humanity, that's 100,000 people that we can put in the combat today. or the other 200,000 are back home training, getting ready to go. our peak in iraq and afghanistan, we had 183,000 soldiers deployed. that o 100,000 doesn't even get us to where we were. there are ways to manipulate that. we can manipulate the so-called boots on ground ratio.

everything is an acronym or shortened. there are ways to do this. it's a way to think about how we can consume u.s. army forces. we use them and it can go very quickly. so those are the great. challenges i see for us going forward. a time for the army both inside as we think about ourselves confronting a world that does seem to have some kind of change in the last 30 years to a new place in how the country deals with it is something that we grapple with. >> thank you. that was a massive amount of information. very much appreciate the scale and scope of your comments.

and i know there are lots of questions out there, so we will get to those in just one moment. i want o to exercise the prerogative of the chair and ask you something you didn't talk a lot about about your specific role as the undersecretary, a position which has a lot of latitude. it's been interpreted very differently by many of your predecessors despite the same guidance. so i wanted to ask you about what you see as your primary responsibilities and priorities as the under and ask you more generally about senator mccain was here last week talking about his desire and there seems now to be growing consensus that some of that ought to be

relooked. so i wanted to get your perspective on either within the context you think we have the balance of secretariat versus the rest of the enterprise, roles and responsibilities about right and then same question for within the department of the army specifically. >> in some way it's like being the vice president. you could be nothing more than a warm bucket of spit when he was not given any responsibility by president roosevelt or he could be as it has been in recent years where you have people like al gore and dick cheney who

exercise tremendous influence. it's codified in any general order is to allow them to make better decisions by simulating information, pushing back, by ensuring the presentations accurately reflect the real choices that descent within the army staff is noted. they fully understand all the implications of this. they get to make the decisions unless they expressly delegate them to me or to others but to allow them to make better decisions is how i see my role. i have a statutory role at the outset where as chief management officer i'm responsible for these enterprise resource programs and the audit ability and the management of it so it's very technical aspect extremely important aspect, something that the unders working on business which we mean the rolling out of i.t. programs to improve our

efficacy is something that i see myself doing. i have a great relationship with the secretary and the chief and because of that they give me a lot of latitude to try to do things that are interesting. i would never forget they get to make the important decisions and for me it's about understanding what they want to do and making sure as their action arm that the army staff or the secretariat does it. so fixing o problems is how i see the role as being. i didn't see what senator mccain had to say about it. so let me take a more agnostic approach that this is going to be interesting to see how it plays out. because we never have seen it in a world where there wasn't plentiful resources. where service chiefs and others could not get along in divvying

up the resources about things. now we're in a world where the pie has gotten smaller and the demands are anything greater. we don't even have money for the submarine replacement. much less the other billions that the navy needs for shipbuilding. you have the long range bomber coming online. the f-35, it goes on and on, so resources are scarce so it's going to be interesting to see whether over the last few years is something that can continue. is the balance right within the secretary and the army staff or the services? i find this to be an environment where it's all about the personalities. the secretary and chief get along well. you have to fight for your prerogatives at all times. you have to fight pr your oversight roles, fight to be involve ed involved in the action.

you have to add real value to it. the great thing about the army, they get things done. these are people who are used to getting things done. they have a plan they have a biassed optimism. they thought through leadership and so people get things done. you have to get with the program because there are projects that have to get done. so i think the balance is good. it's one that changes the administration. new people come into any particular job and we all have exact compliments on the army staff so i have the vice, the reserve affairs and that relationship is going to be about the people. former vice now in afghanistan, it's all about relationships and having good relationships allows this unwieldy beast with you have two parallel organizations more or less charged with doing the same thing.

how this all works and doesn't become just bureaucratically a nightmare is all about the willingness of people to work together and having a strong relationship. when those don't exist things can fall through the cracks, tempers rise, but i have seen it work really well. that's a testament to the sec secretary and the chief and the people that put them in these jobs. >> thanks. audience questions, i've got a couple already by e-mail. let me ask you can the army reap the benefits of innovation if it does not improve institutionally its tolerance of failure and encourage risk taking and creativity? >> no, by definition to be innovative is to be vulnerable and we have to do that. does t